Bootlace

[Peter Miller]

Shoestring first began winni ng races in 1949 so was one of the very fiirst racers in the class.

 

Ketner then produced a set of plans by measuring the aircraft. The aircraft that were buiult from these plans were Ricky Rat, Yellow Jacket, Solution, Nobigthing and Spudrunner.

 

There may well be others such as the previously mentioned Sly Dog but that aircraft really only uses the basic tubular fuselage frame with new wings and tail.

 

Personally I don't really think that Ian Paecock's Bootlace is even based on Shoestring. Note that the tail surfaces do not look like the full size. the wingtips are square and the wings have dihedral. Add in the turtle deck and it bear s very little ressmeblance to the original.

 

I suspect that Ian designed a nice model that looked like a racer with a shoulder wing and called it Bootlace because of a very superficial ressemblance to Shoestring.

 

As a point of Interest, my plans for a slightly less stretched Yellow Jacket are with AMI, They have been there for over a year. Maybe they will be publsihed one day in the not too distant future.

[Steve Hargreaves - Moderator]

Good grief Peter...how many models have you actually designed....it almost seems like one a week!!!!

 

Seriously though we need people like you....you are the lifeblood of the hobby!!!

[Peter Miller]

I don't know how many I have designed, been designing since about 1955.

 

Since 1974 I have had 123 plans plublished. one or two of those have been the same plan published in two magazines. This includes plans published in the USA and two in Poland.

 

Four plans on file with magazines at the moment. One model almost ready for covering and another plan ready to build. 

 

Also 8 3 view drawings.

 

The designs include free flight and Control LIne.

 

I really must slow down a bit.

[Steve Hargreaves - Moderator]

!!!!

[Darren ROBINSON]

The Bootlace was the first plane I ever built. I commenced building it to kill time while my wife was working away and joined a club when it was half built. The I learned to fly.

[Erfolg]

Darren

 

The IP or PM model.

 

If the IP version, how I wish I still had mine, as it size is just right for electric conversion. It also flew really well, far better than my Waterhouse and Ely, Superfly, which preceded it.

[Andy Shailer]

Hi all,

sorry  only just seen thread, just moved and waiting to get back on the internet, it still flys lovely and sometimes very lively!!  going back to bb, no havnt got any video of her flying, maybe will have when weather gets better.

 

Andy

[Jan Huyser]

Hi to all,  and a very high reving new year to all

 

   Taking balsa to plan, one never really knows for sure how successful your endevours are going to be, until of course, that thrilling maiden flight arrives.  

 I built this very Bootlace in 2006 and it turned out to be a very nifty and enjoyable model to fly indeed. Turned a few heads in the process. In a moment of weakness though, I sold it in 2007, and very soon  regret having done that. (Like you do...).

      From what I read here I am not the only happy customer, so yes, I will recommend this build any day.

 

Jan

 

   

   

     

[Peter Miller]

How did you get on with the wing ribs on your first one. They were nothing like the ones that I drew on my plan.

 

I can provide a print out of the correct ribs if anyone needs them.

[kc]

If the ribs were inaccurate in the published plan are they corrected if one buys a copy  of the plan now?

 

Peter must be one of the most prolific  designers around now, so surely an article is due soon celebrating his designs.  How about it Mr Editor?

[Peter Miller]

Sorry SORRY!!!!

 

I must have been getting mixed up. Just checked and the Bootlace plan ribs are fine.

 

It was about that time that I was having to send ribs to a people on another Forum and I thought it was the bootlace ribs.

 

You will have to forgive me, it is senility galloping in. It was six years ago

 

Oh, and my score so far is about 120 plans published plus some 3 views.

[Darren ROBINSON]

The build article and accompanying photographs are the same as those published in Jan or Feb 2004 edition of RCM&E. This is the plan from which I built my Bootlace. I had a photograph in my album of my Bootlace but it seems that all of the photographs of MY BUILDS FROM rcm&e plans have been removed or blocked. Maybe just coincidence. Photographs of my Bootlace were also published in a readers section of RCM&E a couple of years back. It was published that I had won a prize for my letter, but never received my prize. Probably lost in the post.. . It's a long way to Australia. Anyway my bootlace is still flying strong.

[David Ashby - Moderator]

No one has blocked your photos Darren, try re-loading them. A bit late to query non-receipt now I'm afraid, sorry about that.

[mal brewer]

Looking at that picture of the Ian Peacock designed Bootlace,I couldn't help noticing how similar it looks to a model I built round about 1969.This model was the Blister,designed by the great P.E. Norman,and was included in the aps (aeromodeller plans service) range.P.E. was well-known for his somewhat unconvential building style,and all his models were very strongly built.The Blister was,believe it or not,designed for single channel radio,and was designed with plug-in knock-offable wings,a knock-off engine mount,and lots of ply in the construction.It was about 45" span,and used a 2.5c.c. (0.15 c.i.) engine.Hot stuff indeed.I don't think anybody would dare attempt to fly anything like this rudder-only nowadays,we must have been a lot braver,or more foolish,then.Makes you wonder,however,where the inspiration for model design comes from.Previous designs must always be in the back of people's minds...........Mal.

[Peter Miller]

P.E. Norman was famous for his free flight scale models. all built like brick built chicken coops. (Thought I was going to say something else, didn't you, moderators!!!)

 

They would land like a ton of bricks and disintegrate and P.E. would plug them all back together and launch them again. He would launch several and his fetchermites would collect them while he got on with launching the next one on Epsom Downs. I got this description from one of his fetchermites years later.

 

I know someone who built his Fokker Triplane. It smashed into the concrete runway.  Very serious damage for a P.E. model...it ground some of the nylon covering off a wing tip.

 

His Typhoon (or was it Tempest) was tiny, over powered and lethal with a tiny movement on its pendulum elevator.

 

His Blister followed the same tradition.

Edited By Peter Miller on 01/01/2010 18:26:12

[Erfolg]

I have just had a look at my Blister plan.

 

I think I can see PM point regarding the robust build. It is probably a step change in beefiness from most free flighters of the time. I guess it could be considered to be contemporary in some respects. In that the forward end of the fus. is built on a 1/8" ply crutch. I think some of the strange, by today's standard, design features are the result of the RC at that time.

 

The body had to withstand the forces from a giant rubber band or elastomer motor (sounds a lot posher) which drove the Elmic escasement. The escasement was attached to the crutch on its own ply plate.

 

The motor mount was in concept in keeping with current practice. In that the motor was attached to motor mount which was independent of the firewall. Being made of folded sheet, rather than a polymer moulding or cast alloy. I supect this was to facilitate alternative motors if necessary. The contemporary method was hardwood beams integrated into the fore part of the fuz.

 

With regard to the ply spigoted wings, I strongly suspect this was an acknowledgement of both the poor reliability of these early RC sets and that everything had to be achieved with rudder only. This lead to a situation where a crash could be one button press away from disaster. Most landings being by to-days standards crashes, the rest were crashes.

 

The motor being a 15 is very low powered, for such a large model, by to-days norms.

 

It is sad to reflect that PE Normans health was already in question at the time of the article March 62, having suffered a stroke.

 

The idea of an article on PM design history , is an excellent idea, which Dave Asby could seriously consider. It would in my opinion be enhanced by weaving aspects of his none modelling life (which are not intrusive) to add further colour. Mags do benefit from a broadening of topic from revues, plans to a human aspects, the people, there accomplishments, tribulations and why they are who they are.

 

Erfolg 

[Peter Miller]

As I said in my last post, P.E. Norman always built his models very striong and heavy. The Fokker Triplane Free flight model wings were bult with two spars, Each spar was built up from 1/8" square spruce top and bottom filled with 1/8" shhet between them and then every joint was bound with cotton. Then the whole was nylon covered.

 

The escapement rubber was not significant, usually a mere loop of 1/8" or possibly 1/4 rubber strip. No loads from that. It only had to turn a lever which was a piece of wire through a yoke attached to the rudder.

 

The motor mount was a throwback to really vinatge days and P.E. Norman's  "knockoffability" Engines in the pre and immediate post war years were often mounted on separate mounts which were held to the model by rubber bands. IT protected the engine in the event of a crash. Never forget that in those day an engine cost well over a week's pay. 

 

Likewise the plug in wings were part of the knock off desing beloved by P.E.

 

In 69 radio was still not reliable and multi channel gear was reed gear. You could only operate two channels at once normally. Most people flew single channel. Thus that ability to abosrb crashes without damage was pretty important. P.E. just took it several stages ffurther than most.

[Erfolg]

I do wonder about the wings and their method of attachment. today even gliders normally have long dowels which ensure that they (wings)  stay on the model, if the pilot gets energetic, often supplemented with elastic bands between each root, tape, or positive wing catches. However the Blister had just the friction of a relatively short wing box.

 

I guess it worked? Or was the flying less energetic than is common with such a type of model today?

 

Erfolg

[mal brewer]

I'm quite suprised that anybody still has a copy of P.E. Norman's plan of the Blister.Although the engine size of 2.5 c.c. appears small by today's standards,in it's time it was very high powered,most models of that size had only a 1 - 1.5c.c. diesel engine fitted.P.M. is quite correct re. the escapement rubber,it was a loop of 1/8" rubber driving an Elmic 'Conquest' actuator,which gave only 'bang-bang' rudder control in a 'neutral-left-neutral-right' sequence.And yes,the radio was pretty unreliable.I seem to recall that the wings on 'Blister' were secured to the ply tongues with matchstick shear pins,or was that a 'mod' I made to the design,I wonder.P.E.'s anti-crash methods worked very well,my blister survived many high-speed crashes,despite being very heavy,on account of it's nylon covering,polyurethane paint finish,any ample ply in the constuction.However,like I posted in my previous thread,do you not think that the Brian Peckham 'bootlace' design is oh so similar in appearance?....Mal.

[Peter Miller]

Yes, that toungue with sheer pin was very popular with gliders and FF models. The idea was that when the model came to an abbrupt stop the wings could simply pivot forwards. As there was no elevators there were no stresses in the looping plane.

 

The wire joiners would not free up so easily and could get bent.

 

The KK Ladybird used the tongue and box system system.

[Erfolg]

Mal

 

I will check later after shopping, I thought the Bootlace was a Ian Peacock design?

 

I am pretty sure that a kit was also produced of the model, which i guess was a clone, if I am correct.

 

As to keeping plans and magazines. I was guilty of hoarding, and had boxes of mags until relatively recently. When I decided to retire,de- cluttering was my first task (as set by my wife). So now only have a fraction of those historic documents.

 

A major difference between say PM and my own flying in my youth, is that my friends and I modelled in isolation, no adults involved at all. All we knew or thought we knew came from books by Waring (cannot remember christian name), Vic Smeed and magazines. Our understanding of the importance of the CG was extremely poor, concentrating on wing incidence and test glides I think this also encouraged us to CL, most things will do a lap.. Any smooth flight was a delight. Now everything has changed, I do not see youngsters with models at all.

 

Erfolg

[Peter Miller]

Erfolg says "A major difference between say PM and my own flying in my youth, is that my friends and I modelled in isolation, no adults involved at all. "

 

MY modelling started in the Argentine. Not even a book for the first, then a very good little book in Spanish. I even had oneArgentine  magazine once. No help, no adults. Not even other modellers. Eventually I did get a model to fly well!

 

Then back in the UK and I started a club with youngsters of my own age. Just the usual books and magazines. From there I would say that Erfolg's and my progress was roughly the same.

[mal brewer]

 

Hello Erfolg ,yes you're quite correct,it was an Ian Peacock design,must have been another senior moment on my part! Mind you,they were both prolific designers at the time,and both designed,dare I say it,similar type of models.I know we're going off the original thread a little now,but you seem to be somewhat similar to me,I'm afraid.I too,have just had my loft re-insulated,and as a result,I took literally a van load of magazines to the local tip.I kept the more interesting mags,but I've still got another van-load I'm hanging on to.I also modelled from before my teens without adult assistance,and as a result I read everything I could about aeronautics,building tecniques,and covering and finishing systems.Engines were stripped and re-built,models stripped for any spares,everything was done on a shoestring.I think most older modellers will be rather similar,includig of course,P.M.............Mal.

[mal brewer]

 By the way,it was Ron Warring,I think it was spelt with 2 'r's'. By a strange coincidence,I have just built a couple of Vic Smeed designs, a 'Mam'selle', and a 'Ballerina'. I remember building a 'Mam'selle'' whilst at school,from the free plan published in the Christmas 'Aeromodeller'', I think that was 1957.....................Mal.

[Erfolg]

It is interesting that many of us started our modelling as a group of prepubescent kids who's hobby took them to there  early teens.

 

 In my case studying diverted my attention from modelling, then it was study, music and girls.I came back for a few years in the mid late 70s purchasing a Waltron set, then it was career commitments that diverted attention. Only early retirement has brought me back.

 

Over the years there have been many changes, yet the core values have remained. The joy of seeing a model fly as I dreamt of as a child, and the satisfaction which comes from making things.

 

Regarding Bootlace, the PM version, I seriously considered the model myself. Yet there were so many other models which appealed to a greater extent, strangely many of these have been PM semi scale plans of USA pylon racers.

 

I am now nearing the conclusion of the PM Cassutts. I just no longer like film covering, or more truthfully I seem to find it not as easy as in the past. Much prefer tissue dope onto balsa and then painted.

 

When you see the excellent model and finished model in this thread, it has a similar effect to a good advert. Must try one of those, it really looks the "cats whiskers".

 

I keep trying to get PM to model a pre-war pylon racer, or Thompson Trophy type, but he will not be tempted. There are so many, Cessna CR-3, Laid Super Solution, Folkerts SK-3, such an endless list and they all look so different.

 

Erfolg